Sci. Applications Int'l Corp. v. United States

• Decision Date: 06 August 2021
• Docket Number: 17-cv-825
• Parties: SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, and MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Intervenor-Defendant, and L3 TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Third-Party Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, and MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Intervenor-Defendant, and L3 TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Third-Party Defendant.

No. 17-cv-825

United States Court of Federal Claims

August 6, 2021

Stephen R. Smith, Cooley LLP, Washington, D.C. for Plaintiff. With him on the brief are DeAnna D. Allen, Erin M. Estevez Stephen C. Crenshaw, and James P. Hughes, Cooley LLP Washington, D.C.; Douglas P. Lobel, Cooley, LLP, Reston Virginia; and Goutam Patnaik and Gwendolyn Tawresey, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Washington, D.C.

Alex Hanna, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C. for Defendant. With him on the briefs are Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Gary Hausken, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, and Scott Bolden, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C.

Thomas Lee Halkowski, Fish and Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C., for Intervenor-Defendant. With him on briefs are Ahmed J. Davis and Kenton W. Freeman, Jr., Fish and Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C.; and Proshanto Mukherji, Fish and Richardson P.C., Boston, MA.

William Carl Bergmann, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Third-Party Defendant. With him on briefs are Michael Anderson and Cassandra Simmons, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Washington, D.C.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ELENI M. ROUMEL, JUDGE

This patent case involves complex subject matter, important, cutting-edge technology, and relates to several high-value contracts with the United States totaling billions of dollars. See e.g., July 26, 2021 Hearing Transcript (ECF No. 191) at 8:7-17 (referencing $21.9 billion contract between the Government and Microsoft).^[1] In 2017, Plaintiff Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), filed its complaint alleging "that the United States infringed the SERVAL Patents by entering into contracts with Plaintiff's competitors for the manufacture and subsequent use of night vision goggle weapon systems with specialized heads up displays that allegedly use Plaintiff's patented technology." Sci. Applications Int'l Corp. v. United States, 148 Fed.Cl. 268, 269 (2020); Complaint (ECF No. 1) (Compl.) at ¶¶ 2, 37.

The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 7, 787, 012 (the '012 patent), 8, 817, 103 (the '103 patent), 9, 229, 230 (the '230 patent), and 9, 618, 752 (the '752 patent) (collectively, the Soldier Enhanced Rapid Engagement and Vision in Ambient Lighting or SERVAL^[2] patents). See Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3.^[3] Collectively, these patents include 91 total claims. See '012 patent at 9:62-12:3; '103 patent at 10:6-59; '230 patent at 24:24-30:42; '752 patent at 25:1-28:57. The parties seek construction on six terms found throughout each of the four asserted patents. This claim construction Memorandum and Order construes the disputed terms.

BACKGROUND

I. Technology Overview

Night vision goggles (NVGs) passively amplify miniscule amounts of ambient light, such as starlight, and enable a soldier to see obscured targets in the dark. '012 patent at 1:34-36. However, the process of acquiring and striking a target while using these goggles can be cumbersome. Id. at 1:32-33. When a soldier located a target, the soldier was forced to either (1) flip the goggles out of the way and reacquire the target with the sight on his weapon or (2) engage a laser illuminator on his weapon that followed the weapon's line of sight and thus indicated where the bullet would strike. Id. at 1:36-48. Both options came with their own drawbacks. If the soldier employed the first option, the soldier would lose valuable seconds removing his goggles and be forced to acquire the target using the weapon's narrower field of vision, which may be virtually impossible with a distant or moving target. Id. at 1:39-43. If the soldier employed the second option, the illuminator may have the unintended effect of giving away the soldier's position because the laser illuminator may be just as visible to an enemy as it is to the soldier. Id. at 1:44-1:57.

To alleviate these issues associated with acquiring targets using NVGs, U.S. military planners set out to develop technology that would combine images from a weapon sight and the NVG's visual field. See '012 patent at 1:59-2:27. According to the SERVAL patents, the prior art combined images from the field of view and the weapon sight but did not "register" the images. Id. at 1:65-2:3. Instead, the patents assert that, under the prior art, the combined images were often "distinctly offset" with two distinct images of the same target appearing in different places. Id. at 2:13-2:15. This offset could confuse and disorient the soldier because the soldier could have difficulty determining the location of his weapon sight in relation to his night vision goggle field of view. Id. at 2:15-2:18.

To resolve these issues found in the prior art, Retired Brigadier General John Scales led a team of SAIC engineers in developing the technologies claimed in the four asserted patents, which form two interrelated patent families. See Compl. ¶ 1; Sci. Applications Int'l Corp., 135 Fed.Cl. at 664. Each patent family is described below in turn.

1. First Patent Family ('012 and '103 Patents)

The First Patent Family consists of the '012 and '103 patents, which share a common specification.^[4] The '012 patent is entitled "System and Method for Video Image Registration in a Heads Up Display." See generally '012 patent. The '012 patent was issued on August 31, 2010 from an application filed on December 2, 2004 that did not claim priority to any earlier-filed application. Id. On its face, the '012 patent identifies two inventors, John Richard Scales and Mark David Hose, and an assignee, Science Applications International Corporation of San Diego, California. Id. The '012 patent issued with nineteen total claims. See '012 patent at 9:62-12:3. Method claims 1 and 17 are the only independent claims. Id. at 9:63-12:3. Claim 1 of the '012 patent recites:

1. A method of registering video images with an underlying visual field comprising the steps of:

(1) determining a source orientation of a video source providing a video feed containing data for a series of video images representing portions of a visual field;

(2) determining a display orientation of a transparent display overlaying the visual field, wherein the video source and the transparent display are independently movable about multiple axes; and

(3) displaying the video images in positions on the transparent display that overlay portions of the visual field represented by the displayed video images, wherein boundaries of the displayed video images are in registration with boundaries of portions of the visual field represented by the displayed video images.

Id. at 9:63-10:10.

Claim 17 of the '012 patent recites:

17. A method of registering video images with an underlying visual field comprising the steps of:

(1) determining a source orientation of a video source of a video feed;

(2) determining a display orientation of a transparent display overlaying the visual field;

(3) displaying a portion of the video feed in the transparent display;

(4) registering the portion of the video feed with the underlying visual field; and

(5) repositioning the portion of the video feed within the transparent display when the video source or transparent display moves.

Id. at 10:48-60. Claims 2-16 and 18-19 of the '012 patent depend ultimately on claim 1. Id. at 9:63- 12:3.

Like the '012 patent, the '103 patent is also entitled "System and Method for Video Image Registration in a Heads Up Display." See generally '103 patent. The '103 patent was issued on August 26, 2014 from a divisional application filed on July 26, 2010 that claims priority to the application filed on December 2, 2004, which issued as the '012 patent. Id. The '103 patent shares the same specification with the '012 patent. Id. On its face, the '103 patent identifies the same inventors and assignee as the '012 patent. Id. The '103 patent issued with twelve total claims; system claim 1, reproduced below, is the only independent claim. Id. at 10:7-59.

Claim 1 of the '103 patent recites:

1. A system comprising:

a video camera adapted to provide, in a video feed, data for a series of video images representing portions of a visual field;

a first orientation sensor adapted to detect an orientation of the video camera;

a heads up display (HUD) adapted for viewing of the visual field by a user of the system wherein the HUD comprises a transparent display, and wherein the HUD and the video camera are independently movable about multiple axes;

a second orientation sensor adapted to detect an orientation of the HUD; and

a computer adapted to receive sensor data from the first and second orientation sensors, to receive the video feed from the video camera, and to display the video images, on the transpar[e]nt display and based on the received sensor data, in positions that overlay portions of the visual field represented by the displayed video images wherein boundaries of the displayed video images are in registration with boundaries of portions of the visual field represented by the displayed video images, and wherein the computer is adapted to determine a source orientation of the video camera, and determine a display orientation of the transparent display.

Id. at 10:7-31.

SAIC's asserted claim 1 of the '012 patent and asserted claim 1 of the '103 patent recite nearly identical steps, though the former is a method and the latter is a system. The First Patent Family summarizes their purported invention as "a method for aligning video images with an underlying visual field" by performing various steps. '012 patent at 2:31-37. Those steps are ...